I ticked the latter. And then I read Charlie's post in the comments below. And realised that just ticking infrastructure probably isn't the right answer. Both please. But if it came down to one versus the other, I'd still stick infrastructure over training every time. Have a read of Charlie's comment on this article though. He makes a very valid point about how you can enter your comments on the survey to argue it shouldn't be an either / or scenario.

There's a classic moment in the Southwark transport plan where it talks about how training people to be better pedestrians can improve road safety. I'm all for the green cross code but, come on, why should people be "trained" to walk more safely? Walking isn't dangerous. Neither is cycling.

Crap infrastructure, priotisation of motor vehicles on the ground and legal and insurance anomalies help to make cycling and walking dangerous.

It is a good thing that Southwark trains school children to be better pedestrians or cyclists. And I fully support teaching people how to cycle more safely. But I disagree with Southwark's believe below, that:

"In order to try and encourage school children to cycle to and from school, Southwark offer free cycle training in schools to all primary school children"

Free cycle training will teach primary school children how to cycle, avoid obstacles and what to look out for. But the reality is that all that encouragement to cycle will be outweighed by a very discouraging reality of busy streets with no space for cycling and fast-moving motor vehicles.

Crap Cycling and Walking in Waltham Forest deconstructs the whole idea that cycle training will bring about mass cycling nicely. And I have to agree with this statement:

As part of our efforts to make the City of London realise we have to do more to make cycling a reality here, I've had dozens and dozens of emails and responses. Including this one which just about sums it up for me from a woman who describes herself thus (and I hope she doesn't mind me re-posting her thoughts but they just speak for so many of the people I talk to who say 'I'd love to cycle in London but I'm too scared to'):

"I wouldn't even think of cycling anywhere near [Elephant & Castle] and get off and walk if a junction looks a bit tough. I'm not really a cyclist. I think I'd put myself in the even more under-represented category of people who would like to cycle but daren't! It's been really great seeing how people like me are getting noticed."

Well, I hope that the City of London does sit up and notice people like you. And I hope that Boris Jonson does too. I'm worried that they won't because they don't see the votes in it yet. But it's people who would like to cycle and daren't who need to get involved and help us bring about a change in the way our politicians look at transport and the way they plan for it.

Back to the point, though. This is what she had to say to the City of London and which I hope she doesn't mind me re-quoting. And I think she says better than I can why it's not about cycle training. It's about infrastructure:

"My concern with cycle initiatives being mixed in with other schemes is that while I can see this might appear to save money (by doing all the work once), there is a risk that a cycling elements would take a lower priority and end up not being done at all. I can see this will be very likely where cycle-specific elements will have to: “….be designed with the needs of all road users in mind” - this will lead to compromise solutions that don't give the real ease of cycling that we need to increase cycle journeys.

Current road solutions in my area doesn't give me much confidence in this 'design for all' approach. For example, traffic calming measures, presumably installed partly for my benefit as a cyclist to slow down motor traffic, actually make my trips more dangerous. The "pinch point" variety combining a hump with a road narrowing arrangement forces me to swing out into the traffic to navigate the width restriction, instead of remaining safely to one side. The "slotted hump" has channels cut in it, presumably to make life easier for bus drivers, but presenting me with the challenge of steering a heavily laden town bike through a very narrow gulley, and meaning I have to watch the tarmac rather than the traffic.

If the City is really planning to see a significant increase in the number of people using bicycles then it needs to give cycle infrastructure greater priority in the Local Implementation Plan. It could also learn from other world cities doing much better than London at getting ordinary people out on to bikes... In the UK - and specifically in London - we have stuck with an approach that puts cyclists out on the road mixed in with motor traffic, and we have failed to see the kind of rises in bike use that we wanted. We've given the old approach a fair trial - and it hasn't worked. It's time to try something new: build a decent cycling infrastructure and watch the cyclists spring up to use it.

Let's face it - the City of London is congested with motor traffic. It has been for years. You can spend your money on road improvements for motor vehicles, and you will maybe ease a teeny bit of a blockage here, or make a junction slightly better there. But at the end of your investment period, the City will still be congested. If you spent the money on a cycling infrastructure instead, you could have a have a world beating cycling city so good that anyone complaining about traffic congestion would get laughed at for sticking with a car. "